SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İzmir Atatürk Eğitim Hastanesi Tıp Dergisi / 2008 / Cilt: 46 - Sayı: 2

Screening of antibodies against cytomegalovirus and rubella virus in pregnant women

Gebelerde rubella ve CMV seroprevalansı

Serdar GÜNGÖR
Aşkın YILDIZ
Metin TÜRKER
Gül Süreyya YURTSEVER
İlhan AFŞAR
Aslı Gamze ŞENER
Pages
93–96
Publication Date
2022-10-17
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It was concluded that susceptible candidates of pregnancy should be educated about prevention and control of CMV and rubella infections and following up the patients can decrease the risk of congenital abnormalities.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study seroprevalance of rubella and CMV antibodies have been investigated a risk groups pregnant women.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Rubella IgG antibodies was found to be positive in 88.6% of tested serum samples.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It was concluded that susceptible candidates of pregnancy should be educated about prevention and control of CMV and rubella infections and following up the patients can decrease the risk of congenital abnormalities.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this study seroprevalance of rubella and CMV antibodies have been investigated a risk groups pregnant women. IgG antibodies against Cytomegalovirus and Rubella were tested by MicroELİSA (Alisei Quality System,Italy )kits. Rubella IgG antibodies was found to be positive in 88.6% of tested serum samples. The positivity rate of CMV IgG were detected as 97.5%. It was concluded that susceptible candidates of pregnancy should be educated about prevention and control of CMV and rubella infections and following up the patients can decrease the risk of congenital abnormalities.

Özet

Çalışma, risk grubunu oluşturan gebe kadınlarda Rubella ve Sitomegalovirus antikorlarının seroprevalansını belirlemek amacıyla yapıldı. Sitomegalovirus ve Rubella’ya karşı gelişen IgG antikorları MikroELİSA (Alisei Quality System,Italy) test kiti ile incelenmiştir. İncelenen serum örneklerinde Rubella IgG % 88.6, CMV IgG %97.5 oranında pozitiflik belirlendi. Duyarlı anne adaylarının CMV ve Rubella infeksiyonlarından korunma ve kontrol konusunda eğitilmeleri ve takiplerinin doğumsal anomali riskini azaltacağı kanısına varıldı.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜNGÖR, S., YILDIZ, A., TÜRKER, M., YURTSEVER, G. S., AFŞAR, İ., ŞENER, A. G. (2022). Screening of antibodies against cytomegalovirus and rubella virus in pregnant women. İzmir Atatürk Eğitim Hastanesi Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 46 - Sayı: 2, 93–96. https://ajindex.com/articles/557543

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (18)

  1. Stegmann BJ, Carey JC. TORCH Infections. Toxoplasmosis, other (syphilis, varicellazoster, parvovirus B19), Rubella, Cytomegalovirus (CMV), and Herpes infections. Curr Womens Health Rep 2002; 2(4): 253-258
  2. Akan E. Genel ve Özel Viroloji, 3. baskı. İzmir: Saray Medikal yayıncılık, 1994: 113-115
  3. Davis B, Dulbecco R, Eisen HN, Ginsberg HS. Microbiology. 4th ed. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott Co, 1990: 1067-1074
  4. Ho M. Cytomegalovirus. In: Mandell GL, Douglas RG, Bennett JE, (eds). Principles and Practice of Infectious Disease. 3rd ed. New York, Churchill Livingstone, 2000:1586-1596
  5. Uz T.İntrauterin Viral İnfeksiyonlar ve Tanı. Ed: Ustaçelebi Ş, Abacıoğlu H, Badur S. Moleküler, Klinik ve Tanısal Viroloji. Güneş Kitabevi,2004,Ankara.273-284
  6. Gwendolyn L Gilbert. Infections in pregnant women. The Medical Journal of Australia 2002; 176(5): 229-236
  7. Wiesenfeld HL, Sweet Rl. Perinatal infections. In: Scott JR, Disaia PJ, Hammond CB, Spellacy WIN, (eds). Danforth’s Obstetrics and Gynecology. 7th ed. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott Co, 1994: 481-482
  8. Andrews J. Diagnosis of fetal infections. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2004; 16: 163-166
  9. Best JM, O’Shea S, Tipples G, et al. Interpretation of rubella serology in pregnancy-pitfalls and problems. BMJ 2002; 325: 147- 148
  10. Tang JW, Aarons E, Hesketh LM, et al. Prenatal diagnosis of congenital rubella infection in the second trimester of pregnancy. Prenat Diagn 2003; 23: 509- 512
  11. Aytaç N, Yapıcıoğlu AB, Çetinalp S, Kibar F, Karaömerlioğlu Ö. Kızamıkçık Aşısı İle Aşılanmamış Doğurgan Çağ Evli Kadınlarda Kızamıkçık Duyarlılığı. TSK Koruyucu Hekimlik Bülteni 2007; 6(1): 9-15
  12. Köksal F. Gebelikte İnfeksiyonlar. XI. Türk Mikrobiyoloji ve İnfeksiyon Hastalıkları Kongre Kitabı, İstanbul 2003; s.123-26
  13. Ho M. Epidemiology of Cytomegalovirus infections. Rev Infect Dis 1990; 12: 701
  14. Pass RF. Epidemiology and transmission of Cytomegalovirus. J Infect Dis 1985: 152: 243
  15. Hizel S, Parker S, Onde U. Seroprevalence of cytomegalovirus infection among children and females in Ankara, Turkey, 1995. Pediatr Int 1999; 41(5): 506-509
  16. Griffiths PD, Walter S.Cytomegelovirus. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2005; 18: 241-245
  17. Ornay A, Diav-Citrin O. Fetal effects of primary and secondary cytomegalovirus infection in pregnancy. Reprod Toxicol 2006; 21: 399-409
  18. Revello MG, Gerna G. Diagnosis and management of human cytomegelovirus infection inthe mother, fetus, and newborn infant. Clin Microbiol Rev 20